Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/4410/2009 6/ 6 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 4410 of 2009
=========================================================
RAMESH
NARSIBHAI VADOLIA - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
ZUBIN F BHARDA for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR MR MENGDEY, ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HON'BLE
SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI
Date
: 01/05/2009
ORAL
ORDER
Rule.
Mr.M.R.Mengdey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, waives service
of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent-State of Gujarat.
This
application, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail
in connection with FIR, being C.R.No.I-18/2009 registered with
Gandhigram Police Station, District: Rajkot, for offences punishable
under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 120(B), of the Indian Penal Code.
The
allegation against the applicant is that he, along with other
accused person, is involved in the commission of the above-mentioned
offence.
Mr.Zubin
F.Bharda, learned counsel for the applicant, has submitted that the
applicant is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged.
That the compliant has been filed after a long gap of seventeen
years and the offence has allegedly been committed in the year 1999.
However, the complaint has been lodged only in the year 2009. That
the dispute is of a civil nature but instead of availing the civil
remedy, a criminal colour has been given and the complaint has been
filed. That the applicant is not the main accused person and was
about 18 years of age when the offence is alleged to have been
committed. That the chargesheet has been filed, investigation is
over and documentary evidence is already in the custody of the
investigating agency and as the applicant undertakes not to abscond,
tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses, the application may be
considered.
On
the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has
strongly opposed the grant of bail to the applicant.
I
have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, perused
the averments made in the application, contents of the FIR and other
documents on record. Considering the material on record, the facts
and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence
as well as quantum of punishment that can be imposed upon
conviction, the application deserves to be allowed, especially as
the complaint has been filed after a gap of seventeen years and the
land in question appears to have been sold and re-sold several
times in the interregnum. It is, accordingly, allowed.
The
applicant is ordered to be released on bail, in connection with
FIR, being C.R.No.I-18/2009 registered with Gandhigram Police
Station, District: Rajkot, on his executing a personal bond of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of
the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject
to the conditions that he shall:
(a) not take undue
advantage of his liberty or abuse his liberty in any manner;
(b) not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution and not tamper with the evidence or intimidate the witnesses;
(c) maintain law and order and cooperate the investigating officers;
(d) not leave the local limits of State of Gujarat without the prior permission of the concerned Sessions Judge.
(e) mark his presence before the Investigating Officer of the concerned police station on 15th and 30th day of every month of the English calendar year, any time between 10.00 A.M. to 5.00 P.M. till the commencement of trial;
(f) furnish the address of his residence to the Investigating Officer and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change his residence without prior permission of this Court;
(g) surrender his Passport, if any, to the trial Court within a week;
In
case breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the
concerned Sessions Judge will be free to issue warrants or take
appropriate action in the matter.
Bail
before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case. It
would be open to the trial court concerned to give time to furnish
the solvency certificate if prayed for.
It
is made clear that no observation made by this Court be construed
as having any bearing on the merits of the case, at the time of
trial. The trial Court will proceed in accordance with law,
unaffected and uninfluenced by any observation contained in this
order.
Rule
is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(Smt.Abhilasha
Kumari, J.)
(sunil)
Top